I don't think the article is reliable. The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest. I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned.

Could this "break" in succession have indirectly led to Papal Infallibility since an Infallible Pope could always go back and restore His own line of succession or even change the rules for electing future Popes? 1276 was just 222 years after the Great Schism.

I don't think the article is reliable. The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest. I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned.

Could this "break" in succession have indirectly led to Papal Infallibility since an Infallible Pope could always go back and restore His own line of succession or even change the rules for electing future Popes? 1276 was just 222 years after the Great Schism.

The way I understand it, they lost their Apostolic Succession after they ceased to confess the Orthodox Faith. They have Apostolic roots, there is no doubt of that, but whether or not they have Apostolic Succession today I would have to say no. However, my more knowledgeable Orthodox brethren are free to correct me if I'm wrong in this.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I don't think the article is reliable. The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest. I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned.

Could this "break" in succession have indirectly led to Papal Infallibility since an Infallible Pope could always go back and restore His own line of succession or even change the rules for electing future Popes? 1276 was just 222 years after the Great Schism.

The problem is, how would they get a valid pope?

Quote

He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves, but died before substituting milder ones

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the "Ubi Periculum". Immediately the protracted elections recommenced. In the eighteen years intervening between the suspension of the law of the conclave in 1276 and its resumption in 1294 there were several vacancies of from six to nine months; that which preceded the election of Celestine V lasted two years and nine months. About the only notable act of the latter pope was to restore the conclave. Boniface VIII confirmed the action of his predecessor and ordered the "Ubi Periculum" of Gregory X to be incorporated in the canon law (c. 3, in VI°, I, 6), since which time all papal elections have taken place in conclave

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htmThe 'Ubi Periculum' remained the law of the conclave untill 1963, but there would be question, since Pope Gregory X's successors repudiated it, how was any one canonically elected pope who could restore it.

That has nothing to do with Apostolic succession, though. Any synod of Orthodox bishops with canonical jurisdiction can consecrate a bishop or even restore a Church, as was done for instance in Albania after the fall of communism. Bishop Siluan, sent by the Romanian Church, is the Orthdoox bihsop of Rome.

It is the claims of Ultramontanism and treating an office of "pope" as a super-order of the hierarchy that has painted them in the corner. Since it wasn't founed by the Apostles, it has not Apostolic succession, as opposed to the see of Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The 'Ubi Periculum' remained the law of the conclave untill 1963, but there would be question, since Pope Gregory X's successors repudiated it, how was any one canonically elected pope who could restore it.

Well, 1054 notwithstanding, I was conveying that the line of succession of the Roman Catholic Popes ended with a layman, who served as Pope even for a short time, who died before being consecrated a Bishop.

Any synod of Orthodox bishops with canonical jurisdiction can consecrate a bishop or even restore a Church, as was done for instance in Albania after the fall of communism. Bishop Siluan, sent by the Romanian Church, is the Orthdoox bihsop of Rome.

I'm thinking of the analogy on the RC side except that the Pope solely decides who becomes Bishop, who becomes Cardinal, with little or no consultation from the Consistory (?).

It is the claims of Ultramontanism and treating an office of "pope" as a super-order of the hierarchy that has painted them in the corner. Since it wasn't founed by the Apostles, it has not Apostolic succession, as opposed to the see of Rome.

Sure, the Popes of Rome had Apostolic Succession until 1054. After 1054 and until 1276, could they still claim Apostolic Succession and if they could, did that end after 1276?

Well, 1054 notwithstanding, I was conveying that the line of succession of the Roman Catholic Popes ended with a layman, who served as Pope even for a short time, who died before being consecrated a Bishop

The line of succession could be restored by apostolic bishops, even if there were not a Pope for a time.

Well, 1054 notwithstanding, I was conveying that the line of succession of the Roman Catholic Popes ended with a layman, who served as Pope even for a short time, who died before being consecrated a Bishop

The line of succession could be restored by apostolic bishops, even if there were not a Pope for a time.

Only if they gather as a body declare the election of a layman, Adrian V, as Pope, null and void. The Pope, infallible, Supreme Pontiff, etc., has never done such a thing.

Wait, they raised that big stink about St. Photius being a layman, and how you can't do that, and yada yada (even though such had happened before, such as with St. Nektarios of Constantinople, the successor of St. Gregory the Theologian, who was not even baptized at the time he was selected by the emperor and 2nd Ecumenical Council). And yet they also tried to elect a layman at a later time?

« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 03:10:47 AM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

... Adrian V, ruled only a very short time. The latter died at Viterbo on 18 August, 1276, having been elected on the preceding 11 July. In a consistory of cardinals, he had spoken of an alteration in the decrees of Lyons concerning the papal conclave, and had suspended them temporarily. After the death of Adrian V, the conclave in Viterbo was protracted, in consequence of which disturbances broke out in the town, thus hastening the election, so that in the week following 13 September Petrus Juliani, Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum, was chosen pope, and crowned as John XXI (really XX) the following Sunday (20 September). The new pope wished forthwith to arrange the rules for the conclave. In the Bull "Licet felicis recordationis", ratifying his predecessor's decision, he also suspended with the consent of the cardinals the decrees issued at Lyons, and declared his intention of issuing in the near future the new regulations.

Adrian was elected but likely never enthroned - that his name is traditionally catalogued in papal enumerations is of no particular consequence, as succession was achieved by election of a successor almost immediately after his death. Whether or not he was a layman is likewise a non-issue, as he'd not have been the first (and, if he was, likely not the last) person raised to the presbyterate and onward to the episcopate from the lay state upon being elected to a hierarchical office.

There is no patriarchal line, in any of the Churches, of which I'm aware that has not suffered breaks of time - sometimes prolonged - between the death of a sitting incumbent and the seating of a successor. Such delays have been occasioned by wars, schisms, murders, - you name it, they've happened. So, while far from being a staunch advocate of papal primacy in the form that it's taken, I suggest that speculating a loss of succession over Adrian is hardly a worthwhile pursuit for any purpose other than merely argumentation for its own sake. I'd expect more of some posters to this thread.

John XX/XXI, was elected within a month after Adrian's death and ratified the promulgation that Adrian had proposed relative to the conclave. Note also that the changes to be made were not substantive. They were intended to do away with the praxis of progressively restricting the sustenance afforded electors, to hasten elections and avoid some of the prolonged conclaves that had marked prior elections.

Quote

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the "Ubi Periculum".